Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation by the instant petition called in question the order dated 20-1-1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court, and the order Annexure P-2, dated 2-11-1988 passed by the Labour Court by which respondent No. 1 has been directed to be reinstated in service with fifty percent backwages. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that respondent No. 1 was employed as Badli employee on daily wages. He was appointed on 5-9-1984 and his services were terminated orally on 16-5-1985 on the ground of services no longer required. Respondent/employee filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 31 read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 inter alia contending that he is not permitted to work with effect from 16-5-1985, his termination is illegal, it amounts to retrenchment and his termination has been brought about without conducting any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity of hearing, same is illegal. ( 3. ) LABOUR Court by the impugned order Annexure P-2 has held that the termination amounts to retrenchment, it is illegal and the employee is entitled to be reinstated with fifty percent back wages. Appeals filed by the employee claiming full back wages and by the employer challenging the order of reinstatement have been dismissed by the Industrial Court and the order passed by the Labour Court has been affirmed. ( 4. ) SHRI A. K. Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation has submitted that in the instant case, respondent was only a Badli/temporary employee, employed as per requirement of work and his work was found unsatisfactory. He was discontinued from service. It is submitted that respondent/employee had worked only for a short duration between 5-9-1984 to 16-5-1985. Termination comes within the exempted clause of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not a case of retrenchment and the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have applied the provisions of law incorrectly. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the termination was for unsatisfactory services and as the respondent/employee was only a temporary/casual employee, he had no right to hold the post. Accordingly, orders impugned cannot be sustained. It is not a case of retrenchment and the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have applied the provisions of law incorrectly. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the termination was for unsatisfactory services and as the respondent/employee was only a temporary/casual employee, he had no right to hold the post. Accordingly, orders impugned cannot be sustained. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for petitioner-Corporation has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Shailaja Shivajirao Patil v. President, Hony. Khasdar UGS Sanstha and Ors. [2002 LLR 497], M. P. S. R. T. C. and Ors. v. Chakrapan Singh Dhakarh and Anr. [2002 LLR 436], M. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Purshottam Bhargava and Ors. [2002 LLR 186] and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma [2002 LLR 242]. ( 5. ) PER contra, Shri H. K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent/employee has contended that on the basis of the evidence which had come to record before the Labour Court, it was established that the termination was for misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket on various occasions. That being so, termination which was without conducting enquiry was rightly interfered with by the Courts below. As no enquiry was conducted, the termination amounted to retrenchment. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported in Bharat Chand Chaturvedi v. State of M. P. and Ors. [ 1993 MPLJ 159 ] and Madhya Pradesh Dugdh Mahasangh v. Gangadhar Sharma [ 1996 JLJ 19 ] in support of his contention that respondent/employee is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. ( 6. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The Labour Court in the instant case on the basis of the evidence produced by the corporation came to the conclusion that the termination was on the grounds of misconduct and as much as on two or three occasions, respondent/employee was found carrying passengers without ticket and it is for this reason that his services were terminated. As no enquiry was conducted, it has been held that the termination amounts to retrenchment. Accordingly, relief had been granted to the respondent/employee. As no enquiry was conducted, it has been held that the termination amounts to retrenchment. Accordingly, relief had been granted to the respondent/employee. Industrial Court also considered the evidence produced by the Corporation and it is the conclusion of the Industrial Court that services of the respondent/employee were terminated for carrying passengers without ticket and as no departmental enquiry was conducted before terminating the services, interference in the order passed by the Labour Court was not made. ( 7. ) IN the instant case, the fact remains that the employee had worked for a short period between 5-9-1984 to 16-5-1985. In the application under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act filed by the respondent/ employee before the Labour Court vide Annexure P-3, it has been admitted by him in para 1 that he was appointed on 5-9-1984; he was working sincerely and honestly; his services were terminated on 16-5-1985. In para 3, it was his case that he is being paid only 360/- rupees per month, i. e. , 12/- rupees per day. Apart from this, no dearness allowance or any other benefits were being paid to him. He had prayed that he is entitled to be declared as a permanent employee and regular wages should also be paid to him. From the aforesaid averments of the respondent/employee himself, it is clear that he was not a regular employee, but as stated by the petitioner-Corporation, he was only a temporary/casual or Badlidar employee and he had worked only from 5-9-1984 to 16-5-1985. That being so, he has not been in continuous employment for a period of one year as required under the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Employee who has not been in continuous employment for a period of one year as required under the aforesaid provision is not entitled to get any retrenchment compensation and in such cases, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted. That being so, finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the termination amounts to retrenchment and the same cannot be brought about without payment of retrenchment compensation is incorrect. The finding is contrary to the provisions of law and cannot be sustained. That being so, finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the termination amounts to retrenchment and the same cannot be brought about without payment of retrenchment compensation is incorrect. The finding is contrary to the provisions of law and cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has to be held that this was not a case of retrenchment and the provisions of retrenchment are not applicable in the instant case. In this regard, the law laid down by this Court in the case of MPSRTC v. Chakrapan Singh Dhakarh (supra), squarely applies. ( 8. ) QUESTION which now requires determination is whether termination is on the ground of misconduct and whether termination cast stigma because of which the order impugned is to be upheld. The law on this aspect of the matter is well settled. Employer has right to terminate the services of a probationer or temporary employee on the ground of unsatisfactory service and for this purpose, it is not necessary to hold departmental enquiry or give opportunity of hearing. Question is as to whether the termination cast stigma on the employee. In this regard, Supreme Court in the case of Shailaja Shivajirao Patil (supra) has considered the law on the subject and has held that merely because some enquiry is held prior to termination of services or if something is brought on record to justify the termination, that by itself will not make the order of termination penal in nature. That may be a factor which was taken into consideration by the employer for not continuing the services of probationer or temporary employee and the employer is entitled to satisfy himself about the continuation of a temporary or probationary employee and for the purposes of satisfaction, if the employer has taken into consideration the conduct of the employee during the period of work, it cannot be said that it amounts to casting a stigma. In the instant case, it is not the case of the employer that the services of the respondent/employee was terminated because of any misconduct. In the instant case, it is not the case of the employer that the services of the respondent/employee was terminated because of any misconduct. On the contrary, from the records, it is revealed that it was their case that the services of the respondent/employee were terminated because of unsatisfactory work during the period while he was in employment and to justify this, witnesses had merely stated that on some occasions when the buses in which respondent/employee was working were inspected, passengers without ticket were found. This fact has been taken into consideration by the employer only for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the respondent/employee and to consider his case for retaining him in service. Considering the aforesaid, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, it cannot be said that this fact was a foundation for terminating the services. This may be a factor which motivated the employer to discontinue the services of respondent/employee as no longer required. In this regard, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U. P. [jt 2000 (5) SC 181] is very relevant. In that case, the Supreme Court has considered the distinguishing feature with regard to motive and foundation for terminating the services of an employee and it has been held that if the termination was founded on misconduct, then it would be illegal. However, if these factors had only motivated the employer to terminate the services, then such terminations have been upheld. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of P. N. Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P. G. I. of Medical Sciences and Anr. [jt 2001 (9) SC 420]. After considering in detail the law laid down on the question, the Supreme Court held that in such cases, termination cannot be stigmatic and it refused to interfered with the similar orders. ( 9. ) CONSIDERING the case in hand, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of P. N. Verma and Chandra Prakash Shahi (supra), it has to be concluded that in the instant case also, respondent/ employee was only a temporary employee and petitioner-Corporation has only taken into consideration the fact with regard to carrying the passengers without ticket for the purpose of assessing his suitability. It was not a case where the respondent/employee was punished for any misconduct. Finding recorded by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in this regard cannot be sustained. It has to be held that the termination was only because of unsatisfactory service and, therefore, no enquiry was required. Industrial Court and the Labour Court have not considered the well settled legal principles in recording the finding against the petitioner and directing for reinstatement of the employee. Accordingly, the orders cannot be sustained. Order impugned Annexure P-1 dated 20-1-1997 passed by the Industrial Court and Annexure P-2 dated 2-11-1988 passed by the Labour Court are quashed. Petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.